Exploring Pakistan’s Nuclear Thresholds – Analysis

[Doktor]

I beg your pardon for replying to this post.

Neither you, nor anyone else needs my pardon/permission to post anything. This forum has these fine admins/mods who seem fair so far. At least to me.

The answer - Never. However, official Pakistani history being taught states that all the wars of 1948, 1965, 1971, Kargil - were won by Pakistan.

Well, Tinu defined what's victory for Pakistan - staying on the map. There you go. They won.

[Tinu]

Ahh, a touch of humour at last, how very droll

But seriously, do keep posting. Its fascinating watching the Colonel's response on top of yours.;)

I am learning and thoroughly enjoying such an interesting discourse. :)

[Tinu]

Neither you, nor anyone else needs my pardon/permission to post anything. This forum has these fine admins/mods who seem fair so far. At least to me.


Well, Tinu defined what's victory for Pakistan - staying on the map. There you go. They won.

How eloquent Doktor - but can't help it ........ ha ha ha ha

[Officer of Engineers]

Sir, this is your biggest problem. You guys are so confident about your abilities and technology and think that you are invincible.

There's a reason for the confidence. It's because we're good.

And then someone comes and surprises you completely. Some major known examples

All bad examples

……. 1998 Indian nuclear tests, 9/11,

We were not looking. We're looking for Pakistani nukes.

post Iraqi invasion environment when the defeated Iraqi bathists, al-qaeda and Iraqi army hit back catching US forces off-guard etc etc.

They've took advantage of the lack of numbers, not the lack of foresight.

Don’t you think that these Pakistanis would not know the kind of technological capability the US possess

No, you don't.

and you think they’d not be prepared for it despite the Americans being there in their amidst.

Oh, I am sure they believe they are prepared. But the fact is that American confidence remains high and it remains high for a reason.

That’s why I said some would be know, most would not be known.

An old axiom. Hope for the best, prepare for the worst. If I were a Pakistani General and I saw such American confidence, I would automatically assume they have such confidence for a reason and then proceed accordingly.

Sir this is not Soviet era facilities which were not built to evade the current US technological advantages. And sir, they’d be using their brains.

How could the Soviets evade technologies that didn't exist yet? However, they did try (and so did we) to evade Cold War technologies and truth be told, we're light years ahead of Pakistan in this arena.

Excellent explanation. I feel that in the run-up to the environment which lead to mobilization of forces, both India and Pakistan would have mated their systems and be ready for a nuclear response, much before their forces would move to forward assembly. Though during the Indian mobilization of 2001 both India and Pakistan accused each other of readying their nuclear forces and though both denied – I for one feel, that the nuclear forces of both countries were on hair-trigger alert status. Your explanation above confirms my assessment.

Your assessment is wrong. 2001 is way too early. Pakistani and Indian tests of 1998 revealed shortcomings in their warhead designs. 2001 would way to early for the fixes to work their way through the arsenal.

Both India and Pakistan use dedicated resources for nuclear strikes which are different than the ones used for conventional operations.

With the exception of India and her two regiments, there are no dedicated nuclear units anywhere in south asia. All current missile forces and aircrafts answer to their immediate commands and not to the NCA. That means that the division and corps commander can do with the missiles as he sees fit as does the wing commander his birds.

[David Crocket]

I do not see how Armitage's denial amounts to a "refutation". Furthermore, on cannot logically make the leap that the story of Musharraf is false simply on Armitage's word. All his denial does is make this situation a "He said" "He said". You want to also argue that because the ISI head is the one who heard these words and not Musharraf himself then this is false and I am being accused of perpetuating a myth. I provided a link to a very reputable paper The London Times which published Musharraf's assertions. Are you asserting that the London Times is not a reputable source? If so on what grounds do you make your claim?

Also, I see that you are intimating that this is somehow hearsay. Even according to Armitage's version of events he does not claim in the link you provided that he did not talk to Musharraf himself. Where is his denial that he ever spoke to Musharraf on these matters? If Armitage is telling the truth it is not as if Musharraf overheard this threat from someone in a bar. It was the head of Pakistani Intelligence.



I think that there is good reason to question the words that come out of Armitage's mouth. Do you know who Lt. Col. Bo Gritz is? He is the most decorated soldier of the Vietnam War. He served as a Green Beret. His story is one that may make you question Armitage's word. He makes me think little of Armitage's word. It means next to nothing to me. According to Lt. Col. Bo Gritz, Armitage dropped the ball on the MIA/POW's held in South East Asia. He let them languish there and most likely to the end of their days.


Bo Gritz Letter to George Bush
http://www.cyber-anarchy.com/forum/&...=3&func=fb_pdf

Mr. Crocket,

You owe us an introduction in the new members section of this forum. It's difficult to miss as it's at the top of the homepage. Please do so and tell us a bit about yourself if you don't mind. That will also serve as an excellent opportunity for you to acquaint yourself with our forum guidelines and perhaps read Zraver's Completely Unofficial Guide To Surviving The WAB.

Secondly, you perpetuate a myth. From WHOM did Musharraf hear such words of "bombing into the stone age"? Armitage?

No. Musharraf's own Director, ISI instead did so.

Richard Armitage has refuted this characterization numerous times. He should know. It is easily researched.

Armitage Denies Making 'Stone Age' Threat-NPR Sept. 22, 2006

Staying informed and conveying solid information to our members is a helpful way of adding value to this board and our knowledge.

[Tinu]

There's a reason for the confidence. It's because we're good.

Agreed you are very good. But then there’s an excellent old axiom – never underestimate the other side.

All bad examples

Sir, when there is no answer – the examples become rotten.

We were not looking. We're looking for Pakistani nukes.

I’ll believe you when US becomes a GOD, till then keep on looking sir, when you find some let us know as well.

They've took advantage of the lack of numbers, not the lack of foresight.

Lack of foresight it was. Had it not been lack of foresight, the preparations, including the numbers should’ve matched the response and a surge would certainly not be required – not to mention the time taken and the additional casualties.

No, you don't.

Sir, you are wrong in this assessment of yours.

Oh, I am sure they believe they are prepared. But the fact is that American confidence remains high and it remains high for a reason.

Like I said before, never underestimate the other side – confidence notwithstanding.

An old axiom. Hope for the best, prepare for the worst. If I were a Pakistani General and I saw such American confidence, I would automatically assume they have such confidence for a reason and then proceed accordingly.

Agreed.

How could the Soviets evade technologies that didn't exist yet? However, they did try (and so did we) to evade Cold War technologies and truth be told, we're light years ahead of Pakistan in this arena.

My response was in an answer to your statement when you said that you knew where Soviet nukes were and knew when the Soviets were lying during SALT etc
Agreed. You are way ahead of all other countries in the world, not only Pakistan. However, this is not WW-2 Hiroshima and Nagasaki environment.
And at the end of the day, we are discussing a contingency wherein purportedly, Taliban may take over Pakistan and US may attempt to take out Pakistani nukes so that these would not fall in Taliban’s hand. Neither the Taliban would take over Pakistan nor would an environment occur wherein US may have to attempt this contingency.


Your assessment is wrong. 2001 is way too early. Pakistani and Indian tests of 1998 revealed shortcomings in their warhead designs. 2001 would way to early for the fixes to work their way through the arsenal.

I disagree. Shortcomings notwithstanding, mating would have taken place with whatever assets which were available then.

With the exception of India and her two regiments, there are no dedicated nuclear units anywhere in south asia. All current missile forces and aircrafts answer to their immediate commands and not to the NCA. That means that the division and corps commander can do with the missiles as he sees fit as does the wing commander his birds.

You have wrong information. Both countries have nuclear commands and these commands have assets directly placed under them and not the Army Commands / Corps Headquarters. In case of Indians however, three of their short range Prithvi Missile Brigades were or may be still under the Army Commands to support operations of their strike corps’.

[snapper]

Tinu Sir, Simple fact is, as explained elsewhere, the Colonel (probably correctly) suggests that if Pakistan initiated a nuclear exchange with India the US, with the backing of the other nuclear 'powers', would be forced to act with overwhelming force to stop any escalation. Presumably such information would communicated to the Pakistani Government before any action was taken and hopefuly before Pakistan initiated such an action. The inference is that the same conditions would apply to India thus any future war between India and Pakistan is more likely to remain conventional.

[Doktor]

How eloquent Doktor - but can't help it ........ ha ha ha ha

Your own words are joke to you?

Therefore, our survival is our victory and we don't have victory parades to celebrate our freedom. We make sure that we remain free. :)

BTW, I haven't seen one link backing up your claims.

Totally OT. May I ask if Pakistan is so great country, what are you doing in the UK?

[Officer of Engineers]

Agreed you are very good. But then there’s an excellent old axiom – never underestimate the other side.

The other axiom that is equally important, never over-estimate them either.

Sir, when there is no answer – the examples become rotten.

The examples you gave does not counter nuclear detection by the US.

I’ll believe you when US becomes a GOD, till then keep on looking sir, when you find some let us know as well.

Pakistan is certainly no God. And here you go



It's open source too.

Sir, you are wrong in this assessment of yours.

When did Pakistan became part of Skunkworks?

Lack of foresight it was. Had it not been lack of foresight, the preparations, including the numbers should’ve matched the response and a surge would certainly not be required – not to mention the time taken and the additional casualties.

If you want to discuss the Iraq War, there's 100 pages of it here and the details of planning and execution failures have been examined in minute detail. Needless to say, it does not support your premise that the Americans are lacking in nuclear weapons detection.

My response was in an answer to your statement when you said that you knew where Soviet nukes were and knew when the Soviets were lying during SALT etc
Agreed. You are way ahead of all other countries in the world, not only Pakistan. However, this is not WW-2 Hiroshima and Nagasaki environment.

2011 United States is 30 years technological ahead of Cold War US. To give you a perspective on the difference in mathematics. We can detect Jupiter size planets in other star systems now.

And at the end of the day, we are discussing a contingency wherein purportedly, Taliban may take over Pakistan and US may attempt to take out Pakistani nukes so that these would not fall in Taliban’s hand. Neither the Taliban would take over Pakistan nor would an environment occur wherein US may have to attempt this contingency.

Pakistani lack of success in evicting the Taliban has kept this contingency alive.

I disagree. Shortcomings notwithstanding, mating would have taken place with whatever assets which were available then.

Then, let me put in terms you can understand. Your 1998 nukes were duds.

You have wrong information. Both countries have nuclear commands and these commands have assets directly placed under them and not the Army Commands / Corps Headquarters. In case of Indians however, three of their short range Prithvi Missile Brigades were or may be still under the Army Commands to support operations of their strike corps’.

Fine. Give me the Order of Battle and the Direct Chains of Command. Put up or shut up.

[S2]

David Crocket Reply

"...All his denial does is make this situation a 'He said" "He said'..."

Hardly. We are discussing Richard Armitage. He is the alleged source of this presumed quote. He is therefore the ultimate authority on the matter.

Armitage Refutes Musharraf's Claim-Feb. 11, 2009 CBS NEWS

"...You want to also argue that because the ISI head is the one who heard these words and not Musharraf himself then this is false and I am being accused of perpetuating a myth..."

The comment didn't happen-plain and simple. The information provided to Musharraf by his Director, ISI was a dramatized elaboration that heavily embellished the actual account.

"(CBS/AP) Former U.S. diplomat Richard Armitage said Friday that an official document detailing his conversation with President Pervez Musharraf's intelligence chief confirms he did not threaten that Pakistan would be bombed back into the Stone Age should the Pakistani leader refuse to join the U.S. fight against al Qaeda.

In a radio interview, Armitage, who was then deputy secretary of state, also said Musharraf had fired the intelligence director shortly after he had relayed the alleged U.S. threat to the Pakistani president...

...Armitage has disputed the language attributed to him but did not deny the message was a strong one.

'It did not happen. I was not authorized to say something like that. I did not say it,' Armitage said Friday in an Associated Press Radio interview.

Armitage — who was former Secretary of State Colin Powell's right-hand man at the time — said he called the State Department Friday morning to double-check his memory and had an employee read him the cable he had sent after his meeting with the Pakistani intelligence chief, whom Armitage identified as Gen. M.

'I reviewed the cable, or had it read to me this morning from the State Department, and there was in no way that threat,' Armitage said."



"...Even according to Armitage's version of events he does not claim in the link you provided that he did not talk to Musharraf himself..."

Why is that necessary? Armitage's refutation and the circumstances surrounding it is clear...unless you choose to ignore such in preference to perpetuating a myth. It appears that's the case with you. You seem to possess an agenda regarding Mr. Armitage.

"...I think that there is good reason to question the words that come out of Armitage's mouth. Do you know who Lt. Col. Bo Gritz is? He is the most decorated soldier of the Vietnam War. He served as a Green Beret. His story is one that may make you question Armitage's word. He makes me think little of Armitage's word. It means next to nothing to me..."

This is an ad hominem attack. The circumstances surrounding Lt. Col. Gritz's claim is irrelevant to the incident. Thoroughly. Let me be clear-it has no bearing whatsoever.

Armitage, regardless of the allegations made by Bo Gritz, carried the trust and confidence imposed by POTUS and SECSTATE as a Deputy Sec'y of State to deliver a very specific message to the government of Pakistan. At no time since Armitage delivered his message to the representative of the Government of Pakistan has either George Bush or Colin Powell suggest their trust in Armitage to deliver their message was misplaced.

That's definitive IMV. Now STFU because you're needlessly derailing a thread that has next to nothing to do with this topic.

[David Crocket]

Yes, we are discussing Richard Armitage and as such his credibility is at issue. Is Armitage a credible source? Hence, the Bo Gritz quote, it goes to show how little Armitage should be trusted. Quite, frankly I do not trust the words of men that let POW's die in captivity. That is a betrayal of the trust invested in him by the American People.

Please correct me if I am mistaken here but there are three parties involved in this situation. They are the ISI head, Musharraf and Armitage. So, to quote one of the Big Lebowski's openning scenes "who is at fault here"? I have yet to read a report that has the head of ISI denying that he told Musharraf to paraphrase "We'll bomb you into the Stone Age". Musharraf is not changing his story. Two out of the three parties have the same story. And, then we have the word of Armitage a man who has betrayed America and let our brothers and fathers held in captivity die there. Do you really support letting American POW's die in captivity?

I think we will have to agree to disagree on this matter because it is true as you have called it. I do not want to derail this thread. I only wished to respond to your argument.

"...All his denial does is make this situation a 'He said" "He said'..."

Hardly. We are discussing Richard Armitage. He is the alleged source of this presumed quote. He is therefore the ultimate authority on the matter.

Armitage Refutes Musharraf's Claim-Feb. 11, 2009 CBS NEWS

"...You want to also argue that because the ISI head is the one who heard these words and not Musharraf himself then this is false and I am being accused of perpetuating a myth..."

The comment didn't happen-plain and simple. The information provided to Musharraf by his Director, ISI was a dramatized elaboration that heavily embellished the actual account.

"(CBS/AP) Former U.S. diplomat Richard Armitage said Friday that an official document detailing his conversation with President Pervez Musharraf's intelligence chief confirms he did not threaten that Pakistan would be bombed back into the Stone Age should the Pakistani leader refuse to join the U.S. fight against al Qaeda.

In a radio interview, Armitage, who was then deputy secretary of state, also said Musharraf had fired the intelligence director shortly after he had relayed the alleged U.S. threat to the Pakistani president...

...Armitage has disputed the language attributed to him but did not deny the message was a strong one.

'It did not happen. I was not authorized to say something like that. I did not say it,' Armitage said Friday in an Associated Press Radio interview.

Armitage — who was former Secretary of State Colin Powell's right-hand man at the time — said he called the State Department Friday morning to double-check his memory and had an employee read him the cable he had sent after his meeting with the Pakistani intelligence chief, whom Armitage identified as Gen. M.

'I reviewed the cable, or had it read to me this morning from the State Department, and there was in no way that threat,' Armitage said."

"...Even according to Armitage's version of events he does not claim in the link you provided that he did not talk to Musharraf himself..."

Why is that necessary? Armitage's refutation and the circumstances surrounding it is clear...unless you choose to ignore such in preference to perpetuating a myth. It appears that's the case with you. You seem to possess an agenda regarding Mr. Armitage.

"...I think that there is good reason to question the words that come out of Armitage's mouth. Do you know who Lt. Col. Bo Gritz is? He is the most decorated soldier of the Vietnam War. He served as a Green Beret. His story is one that may make you question Armitage's word. He makes me think little of Armitage's word. It means next to nothing to me..."

This is an ad hominem attack. The circumstances surrounding Lt. Col. Gritz's claim is irrelevant to the incident. Thoroughly. Let me be clear-it has no bearing whatsoever.

Armitage, regardless of the allegations made by Bo Gritz, carried the trust and confidence imposed by POTUS and SECSTATE as a Deputy Sec'y of State to deliver a very specific message to the government of Pakistan. At no time since Armitage delivered his message to the representative of the Government of Pakistan has either George Bush or Colin Powell suggest their trust in Armitage to deliver their message was misplaced.

That's definitive IMV. Now STFU because you're needlessly derailing a thread that has next to nothing to do with this topic.

[S2]

David Crocket Reply

"...And, then we have the word of Armitage..."

And the minutes from the meeting.

Not a peep from anybody at STATE suggesting otherwise. Still, an FOIA request should get you those minutes and you can confirm or deny what Armitage has said.

You choose to believe the ISI and Musharraf?

Sure.

[Officer of Engineers]

As per the original article, it is pure horse puckey. Islamabad will retain tight fisted control of its nukes no matter what fanboys try to believe. We have two Pakistani General Officers offered their view of a nuclear exchange (falsely as their facts do not reflect the actual physics) in that they have no hope of Pakistan will survive a nuclear exchange with India. Given such a culture of Officers who are not even in the nuclear command structure, it is very clear that the Pakistani Staff military culture fears such an exchange. Tinu, don't even pretend that you are part of this culture.

From the articles I've posted, two Pakistani brigadiers obviously cannot be trusted with nukes. One wants Armageddon and the other is scared to death of such an exchange. Neither is conducive to a nuclear weaponeer.

For Tinu to suggest ready regiments to accept nukes means that officers who have not passed psychological testing to be a nuclear weaponeer contradicts whole history of nuclear weapons practices. Nuclear weapons officers are chosen and trained to be nuclear weapons officers. For ready regiments with no history of officers passing such a course to be given nukes ... well, fanboys can have their dreams also.

[Officer of Engineers]

You choose to believe the ISI and Musharraf?

Sure.

Steve, to be fair. "Either you're with us or against us" carries an implicit threat all its own. Recall the hurt and the anger of the times. We declare war on the Taliban when they said no to handing over OBL. That message could not have escaped the Pakistani elite. And American anger was very, very visible.

[S2]

OoE Reply

Colonel,

"Steve, to be fair. "Either you're with us or against us" carries an implicit threat all its own.

No doubt.



"'I told him in a very straightforward way this was a black-and-white issue for Americans. You were either for us or against us...'

He said several State Department personnel were in the room and heard the exchange, and

'no one remembers a military threat. And the cable does not reflect that.

I would note that Gen. M was fired not long after that by President Musharraf,' Armitage added.

Armitage said he met with Musharraf on Thursday. He did not discuss their conversation.

Julie Reside, a State Department spokeswoman, said she knew no specifics of the Armitage documents, but department cables generally reflect conversations precisely."

It is for that reason that a diplomat was chosen to convey the message. However precise the wording, the ambiguity of an "implicit threat" covers all concerned however which way matters might proceed.

Regardless of what our new friend, David Crocket, thinks Mr. Armitage was one of the absolute best at assuring messages were delivered accurately without overstepping boundaries.